Silver Spring Health Care Center v. A. P.

OFFICE OF THE CLERK
WISCONSIN COURT OF APPEALS
110 EAST MAIN STREET, SUITE 215
P.O. BOX 1688
MADISON, WISCONSIN 53701-1688
Telephone (608) 266-1880
TTY: (800) 947-3529
Facsimile (608) 267-0640
Web Site: www.wicourts.gov
DISTRICT I
October 27, 2026
To:
Hon. Cynthia M. Davis
Circuit Court Judge
Electronic Notice
Robert Rondini
Register in Probate
Milwaukee County Courthouse
Electronic Notice
David Malkus
Electronic Notice
A. P.
Silver Spring Health Care Center
1300 W. Silver Spring Drive
Milwaukee, WI 53209
You are hereby notified that the Court has entered the following opinion and order:
2026AP909-NM In the matter of the guardianship and protective placement of
A.P.: Silver Spring Health Care Center v. A.P.
(L.C. # 2025GN125)
Before Colón, P.J., Geenen, and Petrashek, JJ.
Summary disposition orders may not be cited in any court of this state as precedent or
authority, except for the limited purposes specified in WIS. STAT. RULE 809.23(3).
A.P. appeals orders for permanent guardianship of both the person and the estate, and
protective placement. Her appellate counsel, Timothy C. Drewa,1 has filed a no-merit report
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and WIS. STAT. RULE 809.32 (2023-24).2
1 Attorney Drewa filed the no-merit report but has since withdrawn as A.P.’s counsel. The
Office of the State Public Defender has appointed successor counsel, David Malkus, for A.P.
2 All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2023-24 version.

No. 2026AP909-NM
2
A.P. did not file a response to the report. Based on an independent review of the record and the
no-merit report, this court concludes that there are no arguable appellate issues. Therefore, the
orders are summarily affirmed. See WIS. STAT. RULE 809.21(1).
In March of 2025, Silver Spring Health Care Center filed petitions seeking the
appointment of a permanent guardian of the person and of the estate for A.P., as well as an order
for her protective placement. The petitions and supporting documentation alleged that A.P. was
admitted to Silver Spring in April of 2023, following a hospital stay. A.P. reportedly had a
history of refusing medication and not completing insurance paperwork that would assist with
financial obligations related to her care.
Accompanying the petitions was an examining clinical psychologist’s report prepared by
Dr. Michael L. Kula, who evaluated A.P. and her medical history. Dr. Kula noted that A.P., who
was 81 years old at the time of the evaluation, demonstrated neurocognitive deficits that were
“significant, pervasive and irreversible in nature.” He diagnosed her with major neurocognitive
disorder due to Alzheimer’s etiology as well as bipolar disorder.
The circuit court ordered a comprehensive evaluation by the county under WIS. STAT.
§ 55.11. Randi Colores, who is employed by Milwaukee County Aging and Disabilities
Services, prepared the evaluation, which recommended that A.P. be protectively placed because
of her major neurocognitive disorder. Colores concluded that A.P. was dependent on assistance
for nearly all activities of daily living (ADLs) and instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs),
lacked appropriate insight into her deficits, and would be at a substantial risk of harm to herself if
left without protective placement.

No. 2026AP909-NM
3
The matter was scheduled for a contested jury trial. At the trial, Silver Spring presented
testimony from Toccara Gordon, its director of social services, who testified that A.P. required
total care, was entirely bedbound, and required a mechanical lift with a two-person assist for any
mobility or transfers. Gordon detailed a persistent pattern of medical noncompliance, stating that
A.P. regularly refused medications, blood draws and other lab work, showers, skin checks for
bedsores, and therapy due to paranoid thinking regarding the facility staff.
Dr. Kula and Colores offered trial testimony that was consistent with their previously
submitted written evaluations. Additionally, Silver Spring called its business office manager,
Kristin Wenzel, as a witness. Wenzel testified that she had approached A.P. 15 to 20 times to
gather records for a Medicaid application, but A.P. repeatedly refused to cooperate, resulting in a
large unpaid cost-of-care balance owed to the facility. Wenzel further noted that while A.P.’s
daughter was A.P.’s designated power of attorney, she was largely unresponsive to Silver
Spring’s requests for assistance in submitting the required Medicaid paperwork.
A.P. testified on her own behalf, expressing a strong desire for independence and a goal
to eventually move into her own home. A.P. testified that she would be willing to take
medication but said that she caught staff attempting to give her incorrect medications on more
than one occasion.
At the close of the petitioner’s evidence, A.P. moved to dismiss the petitions on the
grounds that the facility failed to honor her advance planning. The circuit court denied A.P.’s
motion.
The jury subsequently returned a unanimous verdict finding that A.P. was incompetent as
to both her person and her estate at the time of the hearing, that her condition was permanent or

No. 2026AP909-NM
4
likely to be permanent, and that she required protective placement. Consequently, the circuit
court entered judgment on the verdict, granting the petitions for permanent guardianship and
protective placement. The court ordered ANS Guardianship Services as the permanent guardian
of both the person and the estate. As a modification supported by the trial evidence and agreed
upon by the parties, the court ordered that A.P. retain her right to vote and her right to marry, to
be exercised with the consent of her guardian, and her right to consult with her guardian. This
no-merit appeal follows.
We agree with appellate counsel’s thorough analysis that there are no issues of arguable
merit to challenge the circuit court’s orders in this matter. The no-merit report discusses whether
the evidence was sufficient to support the elements necessary for guardianship and protective
placement pursuant to WIS. STAT. §§ 54.10(3), 55.06, and 55.08(1). Upon reviewing the record,
we agree with counsel’s analysis and conclusion that there was sufficient evidence to support the
circuit court’s guardianship and protective placement orders.
Additionally, the no-merit report discuses whether the circuit court erred when it denied
the motion to dismiss the petitions for guardianship and protective placement on grounds that
Silver Spring failed to honor A.P.’s advance planning. A.P.’s trial counsel argued that the
proceedings should be dismissed because A.P. had engaged in proactive advance planning by
executing valid healthcare and financial durable powers of attorney, which Silver Spring failed to
activate or honor before seeking a highly intrusive court intervention. The circuit court denied
the motion.
On appeal, this court reviews a circuit court’s ruling on a motion after verdict to dismiss
under WIS. STAT. § 805.14(1) under a highly deferential standard, affirming the ruling if there is

No. 2026AP909-NM
5
any credible evidence to support the nonmoving party’s claims. Miller v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
219 Wis. 2d 250, 273, 580 N.W.2d 233 (1998). We agree with counsel’s assessment that the
circuit court properly applied this framework when it concluded that Wisconsin’s statutory
scheme does not bar a guardianship petition simply because a proposed ward has executed
advance planning documents. See WIS. STAT. § 54.10(3)(c)3 (providing that a court appointing a
guardian shall consider whether the proposed ward has engaged in any advance planning, such as
power of attorney). The circuit court explained that the existence of power of attorney is a
consideration for the court, but it does not preclude the appointment of a guardian. Viewing the
trial record in the light most favorable to Silver Spring, it introduced sufficient credible evidence
demonstrating that A.P.’s advance planning instruments had failed and could not effectively
meet her ongoing needs.
Regarding statutory deadlines and procedural requirements, A.P. was personally served
with a copy of the petitions. The circuit court appointed a guardian ad litem and advocacy
counsel for A.P. Upon the agreement of the parties, the circuit court granted an extension of the
time limits under WIS. STAT. § 55.10(1). The jury trial was held within the required time limits.
See WIS. STAT. §§ 54.44(1) and 55.10(1). We discern no issues of arguable merit with respect to
the statutory deadlines or the procedures used in this case.
Our independent review of the record discloses no other potential issues of arguable
merit.
Therefore,
IT IS ORDERED that the orders are summarily affirmed. See WIS. STAT. RULE 809.21.

No. 2026AP909-NM
6
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Attorney David Malkus is relieved of further
representation of A.P. in this matter. See WIS. STAT. RULE 809.32(3).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this summary disposition order will not be published.
Samuel A. Christensen
Clerk of Court of Appeals